A 10/10 rating (or a similar score anywhere else, really) at IGN doesn't mean perfect. Just throwing that out there seeing as how it's stated right on IGN's web site and all that.VegetaPrinceofSaiyans said:
Halo Reach Perfect 10! WTF?
- Thread starter Evil_Weevil
- Start date
Recommended Videos
O really because I ind it annoying when I make an actual balance argument and am called an ignorant fanboy because I have a different opinion.VegetaPrinceofSaiyans said:
10 could just mean the game was so much fun playing that they didnt care about the story and this will probably be the case in my experience because to me the story is there to give meaning to the gameplay but even if the story is almost non-existant I don't need anymore reason to kill aliens other than being told "Do it". If I want story I play an RPG I want meaningless fun I play a shooter.
Also seriously what kind of story do you expect from Halo? You are a supersoldier, aliens attack you and you kill them dead, there is no big mystery, no convoluted series of twists, no epic betrayals, it is war plain and simple. There is really no story there other than we're being attacked.
Its like asking for story in a sports game, you do not need anymore motivation other than knowing here is your competition go beat them and while the game's story isn't all that original (but what is these days?) to me it is at least interesting.
Also seriously what kind of story do you expect from Halo? You are a supersoldier, aliens attack you and you kill them dead, there is no big mystery, no convoluted series of twists, no epic betrayals, it is war plain and simple. There is really no story there other than we're being attacked.
Its like asking for story in a sports game, you do not need anymore motivation other than knowing here is your competition go beat them and while the game's story isn't all that original (but what is these days?) to me it is at least interesting.
The reviewer at IGN UK did rate it with words. The people here are saying that his words contradicted his number rating, which is bullshit. The reviewer didn't do anything wrong. He fully explained his reasoning. Some people just can't get it through their heads that a 10/10 review score doesn't mean "absolutely perfect".Doc Funky said:
Name one plot hole.Hardcore_gamer said:
I tend to think that the most important part of a GAME is the GAMEplay. But that could just be me.Evil_Weevil said:
Your point about films is unfair, it's about what you value. Films are (usually) about telling a story. A story is the focus. A story is valued over explosions and shit. It's more like saying 'Let The Right One In is an amazing film, a solid 10/10, despite those CGI cats looking horrendous.'
I think the gameplay should be the focus of a game. I can forgive minor complaints if the gameplay is outstanding.
halo 1 had a very cool story for the time and Id argue that halo 2 has the most underrated story in all of video games (Its a long argument that I don't feel like getting into it now) but my point is that saying reach's campaign and story are the best yet is saying something considering that contrary to popular belief Halo's success was built on campaign, not multiplayer. It was not until halo 3 that the campaign started to lack quality. Halo 1s multiplayer was not on live and was actually built by 1 guy in less than a month near the end of development.Hardcore_gamer said:
Well I was counting Mass Effect as an example of one that does have both and Zelda as one that has the fun without the story.Evil_Weevil said:two great examples but why have we continued in this narrow-minded mentality that we can only have one or the other? Surely games designers and consumers (ideally, represented by responsible and impartial reviewers) want more from games than merely guntoting fun or chin stroking thoughtfulness. ANY media can be counted as successful imo if it simultaniously engages viscerally and mentally and I think games have the single greatest potential to achieve this, I just hope they can realise this potential sooner rather than later.DustyDrB said:
Recommendation for all of you who have been engaging with the original argument rather than some pathetic slagging match about score which everyone recognises as flawed, watch Extra Credits, just do it
This is the reviewers opinion. It's perfectly reasonable to give a game 10/10 despite not having Bioware level writing if you really enjoyed it just that much. Maybe it struck every chord the reviewer wanted played perfectly. Or perhaps it WASN'T actually a 10/10 and between 9.6-10 and had to be bumped up due to the rating system.
Anyway you slice it, you can't legitimately call someones personal opinion wrong. It simply doesn't work like that. The numbers are meant to give a general idea of the quality of the game in the eyes of the reviewer.
In the end, they are just numbers and no reviewer can tell you just how good a game really is or isn't. That's up to you to decide for yourself after playing it. So stop complaining about the review and go play the damn game if it bothers you that much.
Hell, you could even make your own review of it and throw it up here for us to read.
Anyway you slice it, you can't legitimately call someones personal opinion wrong. It simply doesn't work like that. The numbers are meant to give a general idea of the quality of the game in the eyes of the reviewer.
In the end, they are just numbers and no reviewer can tell you just how good a game really is or isn't. That's up to you to decide for yourself after playing it. So stop complaining about the review and go play the damn game if it bothers you that much.
Hell, you could even make your own review of it and throw it up here for us to read.
I'm by no means a Halo fanboy. I've only played Halo 3 once, I don't even own an xbox, and I'm more of a Half-life kind of guy anyway, but not every game needs to have a story. If the gameplay was so good that the story was totally unnecessary, then the game gets a 10 on gameplay alone. The only reason a flawed story would detract from an otherwise perfect game was if the game forced you to sit through it to get to what you wanted, but it doesn't. It sounds like you're just looking for any excuse to rag on a game whose popularity you envy. Reach looks amazing. Not amazing enough to drop the money on a console with such repulsive business practices, but I've skipped other 10/10 games before.
This is what befuddles me because anyone and everyone should bloody well know that 10/10 = 100%, thus perfect score. Ten divided by ten does not somehow equate to 96.7%.ProfessorLayton said:
In my opinion, that is why it is silly to try to attach a numerical value (and only up to 10 no less) to any sort of in-depth rating. Why go through all of the trouble of a review just to round up, leaving a false impression regarding quality? Another factor is simply what constitutes a certain level of prestige for a game to different people, down to varying perspectives. As others have stated, Mario and Zelda games are limited on story but many (myself included) find them overall amazing games.
Another fault with a rather vacuous numerical rating is that it does not signify whether or not a game is accurately being evaluated on all components. I would imagine that Forge and Multiplayer alone are addicting and will be a major draw for Reach. These "grades" fail to point out that those without a Gold account like me could be twiddling our thumbs after the campaign.
Broken down further, how does the campaign play specifically? Is it a royal romp of alien-smashing fun regardless where even a not-so-Halo fan could enjoy it? Or is the story so inspidly dull that only the more devout players will be content with it alone? Evil_Weevil does make a valid point that there is some hypocrisy in giving such praise when there could be a noteworthy flaw that buyers should be aware of beforehand. I was under the impression that Halo was known for its story, for example, so how would such a "review" prove helpful if it flies the old "But if you like Halo..." in my face? I do not like Halo, nor do I abhor it like a zealot paid off by Sony or Nintendo. In fact, what if I or someone else never played a Halo game before?
I feel this is an inherent flaw with the general rating system and can be applied to many other highly acclaimed games. As with the whole "art is subjective, therefore video games as art is subjective," there are different interests and desires people have out of a game, so without addressing such a matter, how is it accurate to brand anything "perfect" for the masses?
Note: I actually look forward to rent Halo Reach if it's available at the local store and did not just write all of the above to try and knock down Reach. I want to thank John Funk because it is good to hear from someone who has played the game that there is a positive enough aspect regarding the game compared to the prior installments.
K, back to the film references: Inception or perhaps The Matrix. Both fantastically fun, but simultaneously fantastically ambitious in terms of ideas and concepts. Where is the equivalent in games? Maybe in the works of auteur designers like Hideo Kojima and the numerous indie studios.John Funk said:And yet, despite not being particularly original and having mostly stock characters, the story is at least engaging and provides reason enough to want to progress other than "these guys are bad." I think it's the best story (or at least, the best-told story) in the series.Evil_Weevil said:As the thread starter I feel it my duty to try and justify my position. This being the internet that's somewhat more difficult to do in a reasonable way, so here goes...
As I said before I do not recognise the validity of a 10/10 score and nor do I believe that this represents an opinion that the game is "Godlike" to borrow a term. Instead I'm in agreement with you and Eren Murtagh that 10/10 is not necessarily perfect. What I would say though is that even with the advances in game design, the craft and detail present in graphical and audio work has been largely lacking from the story telling aspect of games.
I'm not saying either that every game should be Great Expectations or War and Peace (although I would like a game to attempt Kafkaesque, would be, interesting...
It doesn't get in the way of the game, it's functional, the characters are likable, and there are some definite "oh shi--" moments. By FPS standards, it's fantastic. Why should it be marked down thusly?
But the mainstream games industry has developed like cinema's retarded little brother in terms of marketing this trite, uninspired and (to me) utterly unsatisfactory garbage with the way in which it plays it so totally safe with its ideas. Whilst I still play games like MW2 for a little light relief I would hate to see the industry continue utilising these emotionally and intellectually sterile period/future/modern war environment, with none of depth that other mediums have brought to these settings. I mean for Chris's sake, even Starship Troopers had a pretty potent black comedy heart about the bleak pointlessness of war, and that was fun as hell.
No, that is a film using another film to continue the story. I wouldn't expect one film or game to be made that encapsulates an entire story (although it would be nice from time to time game developers) but I expect the film to have some story elements in it. Also, the new Terminator film kinda sucked because of its shallow plot and lack of a real connection to the original Terminators (oh sure, they throw out CGI Arnie and show the scars being made but that's not a real connection, it's a tenuous link at best)Eipok Kruden said:
To clarify, my issue with your original statement has nothing to do with Halo, more your assertion that it's fine for a game to put a story together that says nothing and just be enjoyed based on its gameplay because it has a story written up elsewhere. Games that have no real story are fast becoming a thing of the past. Even Mario tried to put a different spin on its story in Sunshine. If we want the medium to evolve we have to expect games to have a solid storyline woven into the gameplay rather than force people to read literal novels in their time away from the game to get the full experience.
Okay guys, stop bitching about such trivial stuff. What would be the point in a x/10 rating system if the highest rating is a mythical unrateable number. I know people who'd rate work when I was in school and would refuse to give out As because of that same broken-ass train of logic. It's ridiculous. Ratings exist to be given. Should we eliminate the lowest scores since no game could possibly be the complete opposite of perfect.
Yes... that's right. If you got your knickers in a twist over this you're endorsing Big Rigs Over The Road Racing getting a higher score. THINK ABOUT IT.
TL;DR: x/10 is a practical rating system, it's "perfect" in a subjective and practical sense, not an elitist sense. Chillax.
Yes... that's right. If you got your knickers in a twist over this you're endorsing Big Rigs Over The Road Racing getting a higher score. THINK ABOUT IT.
TL;DR: x/10 is a practical rating system, it's "perfect" in a subjective and practical sense, not an elitist sense. Chillax.
I thought Fox news was bad at misrepresenting a story! LOL!
It's almost as if this is the first 10/10 game ever. Or at least the first with a flaw. I wonder what else people will say about this game.... oh wait, tons already have..... and they didn't even play it!!! LOL!
It's almost as if this is the first 10/10 game ever. Or at least the first with a flaw. I wonder what else people will say about this game.... oh wait, tons already have..... and they didn't even play it!!! LOL!
LOL!WanderFreak said:
OT: It's a subjective opinion, nothing else. Why should we care that it's overhyped or not? And that it receives good scores?
I wholly agree with this, which is one of the reasons why Kotaku is probably my favourite site for reviews. They detail what they like and don't like about the game, both in factual commentary and in personal opinions, and they explicitly state how much time they spent with the game but they do not give numerical scores. Even the best written review is undermined by attaching a score to it, whether that score is in numbers, stars or bananas.SelectivelyEvil13 said:
damn, and here was me thinking that war was a tiny bit more involved than that...ReaperzXIII said:
Cheap shots and pettiness aside, representing experiences should have more than one dimension in whatever medium you choose. Yes Sports games are inherently lacking in a narrative because they take each encounter between opponents completely out of the context that usually surrounds them. That's just about acceptable when you take a game of a game because sports (and puzzles) can exist within the framework of their rules. In a sense Halo multiplayer is the best representation of what you want from a shooter because it has no context, no begining and no end, beyond the ones imposed on it by its in built rules. A narrative storyline (which the singleplayer experience is) should strive to convey some motivation, some empathy and perhaps some more complex ideas than "run, shoot, die"
